Anonymous public comment

Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294-0210
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Received Date: May 04 2010, at 07:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: May 5 2010, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: April 28 2010, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: August 27 2010, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80ae68d1
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

You have assembled a biased set of numbers which grossly misrepresent the total percentages and the numbers are inheirently wrong. Why don't you get your figure correct before you propose another rule. Why don't you update your study to years 2000-2007? the GA fleet has been reduced by significant numbers yet you seem to ignore this fact as well as many other facts. Why don't you come up with a viable alternative fuel? Bad science all the way around and just another example of government taxation and misrepresentation of the paying public. Update your study and your numbers and then give us some facts.

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 301
Comment submitted by Jack O. Taylor, International Alternative Energy Resources (IAER)
Public Submission    Posted: 04/29/2010     ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294-0204

Aug 27,2010 11:59 PM ET
Anonymous public comment
Public Submission    Posted: 04/30/2010     ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294-0205

Aug 27,2010 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by M. N. Hindin
Public Submission    Posted: 04/30/2010     ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294-0206

Aug 27,2010 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by Dr. Daniel J. Cziczo, Senior Research Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Atmospheric Sciences & Global Change Division, Director, Atmospheric Measurement Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Public Submission    Posted: 05/03/2010     ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294-0208

Aug 27,2010 11:59 PM ET
Anonymous public comment
Public Submission    Posted: 05/05/2010     ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294-0210

Aug 27,2010 11:59 PM ET